Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc.,
Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
Judge | La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ. |
Citation | (1993), 147 N.R. 169 (SCC),JE 93-270,[1993] CarswellOnt 801,[1993] SCJ No 3 (QL),1993 CanLII 146 (SCC),[1993] 1 SCR 87,99 DLR (4th) 626,147 NR 169,14 CCLT (2d) 113,37 ACWS (3d) 1304,15 CR (4th) 87,60 OAC 1,45 CCEL 153,[1993] ACS no 3 |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Date | 29 January 1992 |
Queen v. Cognos Inc. (1993), 147 N.R. 169 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Douglas J. Queen (appellant) v. Cognos Incorporated (respondent)
(No. 22004)
Indexed As: Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc.
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
January 21, 1993.
Summary:
Queen, a chartered accountant, applied for a job to work on a computer project with Cognos Inc. He was given an interview wherein various aspects of the project were discussed. He was not told that funding for the project had not yet been approved by head office. He was offered a managerial job on the project, which required him to move from Calgary to Ottawa. He signed an employment contract which provided, inter alia, that his job could be terminated on one month's notice or he could be reassigned to another job without a salary reduction on one month's notice. Within five months of his move, head office considered and curtailed the project. He was reassigned to another job and terminated after 1½ years' employment. He sued Cognos Inc. for damages for negligent misrepresentation, claiming that he only accepted the job because of the representations made to him in the interview.
The Ontario High Court of Justice, per White, J., in a decision reported (1987), 63 O.R.(2d) 389; 18 C.C.E.L. 146, allowed the action. Cognos Inc. appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1990), 38 O.A.C. 180; 74 O.R.(2d) 176; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 288, allowed the appeal, set aside the trial decision and dismissed Queen's action. Queen appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the trial judge.
Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508
Misrepresentation - Negligent misrepresentation - Queen was interviewed for a managerial job on a computer project - During the interview the project was discussed, but he was not told that the project funding was not yet approved - He was offered the job - The employment contract provided for termination or reassignment on one month's notice - He moved from Calgary to Ottawa and gave up a secure well-paying job to work on the project - Within five months the project was curtailed - He sued for damages for negligent misrepresentation - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the action, holding that the situation was not one of concurrency; rather the tort was independent of the contract and the liability was not limited by the exclusion clauses in the contract - See paragraph 1.
Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508
Misrepresentation - Negligent misrepresentation - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to five general requirements for a successful action for negligent misrepresentation (Hedley Byrne doctrine) - See paragraph 33 - The court thereafter discussed in detail the application of this doctrine to representations made by employers during pre-contractual negotiations - The court also discussed the situation where an employment contract is signed subsequent to negligent misrepresentations - See paragraphs 34 to 95.
Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2515
Misrepresentation - Concurrent liability in contract and tort - [See both Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508].
Cases Noticed:
BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1993), 147 N.R. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1 et seq.].
Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 18 et seq.].
Burrows v. Burke (1984), 49 O.R.(2d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].
Carman Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and C.P. Rail, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 958; 42 N.R. 147, refd to. [paras. 25, 30, 37, 38, 46, 61, 84, 86, 88].
Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Metropolitan Corp. of Greater Winnipeg, [1971] S.C.R. 957, refd to. [para. 30].
J. Nunes Diamonds Ltd. v. Dominion Electric Protection Co., [1972] S.C.R. 769, refd to. [paras. 30, 80-83].
Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works, [1974] S.C.R. 1189, refd to. [para. 30].
Hodgins v. Hydro-Electric Commission of Nepean (Township), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 501; 6 N.R. 451, refd to. [paras. 30, 55].
Porky Packers Ltd. v. The Pas (Town), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 51; 7 N.R. 569, refd to. [para. 30].
Haig v. Bamford et al., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 466; 9 N.R. 43, refd to. [para. 30].
Mason (V.K.) Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia and Courtot Investments Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 271; 58 N.R. 195; 8 O.A.C. 381; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 598; 35 R.P.R. 118, refd to. [paras. 30, 37, 59].
Rainbow Industrial Caterers Ltd. et al. v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 3; [1991] 6 W.W.R. 385; 126 N.R. 354; 3 B.C.A.C. 1; 7 W.A.C. 1; 8 C.C.L.T.(2d) 225; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 129, refd to. [paras. 30, 37].
Steer v. Averovox Inc. (1984), 65 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 147 A.P.R. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 31, 75].
Wooldridge v. Nickerson (H.B.) & Sons Ltd. and Canso Seafoods Ltd. (1980), 40 N.S.R.(2d) 388; 73 A.P.R. 388; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 55].
Williams v. School District No. 63 (Saanich) (1986), 11 C.C.E.L. 233 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1987), 17 C.C.E.L. 257 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 71, 72].
Grenier v. Timmins Board of Education (1984), 26 A.C.W.S.(2d) 285 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 31, 59].
Pettit v. Prince George & District Credit Union (1991), 35 C.C.E.L. 140 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].
Roy v. B.N.P.P. Regional Police Commission (1986), 72 N.B.R.(2d) 19; 183 A.P.R. 19; 15 C.C.E.L. 167 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].
Esso Petroleum Co. v. Mardon, [1976] 2 All E.R. 5 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 37, 47].
Sodd Corp. Inc. v. Tessis (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
Kingu v. Walmar Ventures Ltd. (1986), 38 C.C.L.T. 51 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 42 R.P.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 39, 41, 80, 83, 92].
Caparo Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 1 All E.R. 568; 108 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 45].
Mutual Life and Citizen's Assurance Co. v. Evatt, [1971] A.C. 793 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 47].
Howard Marine and Dredging Co. v. Ogden (A.) & Sons (Excavations) Ltd., [1978] Q.B. 574 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].
Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd. v. Parramatta City Council (1981), 150 C.L.R. 225 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 47].
Blair v. Canada Trust Co. (1986), 38 C.C.L.T. 300 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].
Koch v. Nelson Lumber Co. (1980), 2 Sask.R. 303; 13 C.C.L.T. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].
Fine's Flowers Ltd. v. General Accident Assurance Co. (1974), 5 O.R.(2d) 137 (H.C.), affd. (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].
Hendrick v. De Marsh and Brennan et al. (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 463, affd. (1986), 13 O.A.C. 62; 54 O.R.(2d) 185 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 59, 75].
Anderson (W.B.) & Sons Ltd. v. Rhodes (Liverpool) Ltd., [1967] 2 All E.R. 850 (Liverpool Assizes), refd to. [para. 59].
Hayward v. Mellick (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 110, refd to. [para. 61].
Datile Financial Corp. v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 358 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 71, 72, 75].
Foster Advertising Ltd. v. Keenberg and Manitoba (1987), 45 Man.R.(2d) 1; 38 C.C.L.T. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 71, 72].
Andronyk v. Williams et al. (1985), 36 Man.R.(2d) 161; 35 C.C.L.T. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 71, 72].
Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 v. San Sebastian Pty. Ltd., [1983] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 268 (C.A.), affd. (1986), 68 A.L.R. 161 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 74].
BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1990), 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].
Banque Financière de la Cité SA v. Westgate Insurance Co., [1989] 2 All E.R. 952, affd. [1990] 2 All E.R. 947 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 75].
Doherty et al. v. Allen, Allen's Service Station Ltd. and Irving Oil Ltd. (1988), 94 N.B.R.(2d) 74; 239 A.P.R. 74; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 746 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].
Carman Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and C.P. Rail, (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 472 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), pp. 96-104 and 614 [para. 55].
Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (1991), pp. 159, 160 [para. 55]; 162 [para. 37].
Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (4th Ed. 1988), pp. 105-119 [para. 55]; 400-404 [para. 47].
Counsel:
Peter J. Bishop and Tom Brooker, for the appellant;
Charles T. Hackland and Mark Josselyn, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Peter J. Bishop & Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on January 29, 1992, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on January 21, 1993, including the following opinions:
La Forest, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraph 1;
Iacobucci, J., concurring reasons (Sopinka, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 2 to 95;
McLachlin, J., concurring reasons - see paragraphs 96 to 103;
Stevenson, J., took no part in the judgment.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Motkoski Holdings Ltd. v. Yellowhead (County), 2010 ABCA 72
...[para. 42]. R. v. Hodson (B.S.) (2001), 281 A.R. 76; 248 W.A.C. 76; 2001 ABCA 111, refd to. [para. 42]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. PD Management Ltd. v. Chemposite Inc. et al. (2006), 231 B.C.A.C. 283; 381 W.A.C. 283; 58 D.L.R......
-
Kelly v. Lundgard, (2001) 286 A.R. 1 (CA)
...256]. ter Neuzen - see Neuzen v. Korn. Kelly v. Lundgard et al., [1996] A.J. No. 672, refd to. [para. 16]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169 ; 60 O.A.C. 1 , refd to. [paras. 20, 104, Schrump v. Koot (1977), 18 O.R.(2d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 266]. J......
-
Marcinkiewicz v. General Motors of Canada Co.,
...2016 BCSC 2129. [47] 2021 ONSC 3897 (Div. Ct.), aff’g 2021 ONSC 3897. [48] 2021 ONSC 5941. [49] Queen v. Cognos, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87 [50] Bruno Appliance and Furniture Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8; Fiorillo v. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (2010), 98 O.R. (3d) 103 at paras. 66-67 ......
-
1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc.,
...v. Perthen, 2007 BCCA 313, 243 B.C.A.C. 135; Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657, 118 O.R. (3d) 115; Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; Kamloops v. Nielson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2. By Karakatsanis J. (dissenting) Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; Deloitte &am......
-
Motkoski Holdings Ltd. v. Yellowhead (County), 2010 ABCA 72
...[para. 42]. R. v. Hodson (B.S.) (2001), 281 A.R. 76; 248 W.A.C. 76; 2001 ABCA 111, refd to. [para. 42]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. PD Management Ltd. v. Chemposite Inc. et al. (2006), 231 B.C.A.C. 283; 381 W.A.C. 283; 58 D.L.R......
-
High-Crest Enterprises Limited c. Canada,
...access to justice has become a practical necessity, sometimes even a constitutional imperative: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 [64] Même lorsque, comme en l’espèc......
-
Peters v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2021 ONSC 5021
...1303 at p. 1364-65. [13] [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557 (Lamer, C.J., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ.) [14] [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87 (La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, and [15] Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources Ltd., 2015 ONSC 5948, varȁ......
-
Boyd et al. v. Eacom Timber Corp., (2012) 400 Sask.R. 31 (QB)
...Financial Services Commission et al., [2011] Sask.R. Uned. 30 ; 2011 SKCA 38 , refd to. [para. 171]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169 ; 60 O.A.C. 1 ; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 626 , refd to. [para. Lysko v. Braley et al. (2006), 212 O.A.C. 159 ; 79 O.R.(3d) 721 (C.......
-
COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (May 22, 2023 ' May 26, 2023)
...C C Intl Inc. v. 2745206 Ontario Inc., 2022 ONCA 12, Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin,[1996] 3 S.C.R. 415, Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, Mahendran v. 9660143 Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 676 Davies v. Clarington (Municipality), 2023 ONCA 376 Keywords: Torts, Maintenance, Champerty, C......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 3 - 7, 2022)
...SCC 42, Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, McCreight v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONCA 483, Queen v Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of), 2017 SCC 63, Barkley v. Tier 1 Capital Management Inc., 2018 ONSC 1956, aff'd 2019 ONCA 54 ......
-
Top 5 Civil Appeals from the Court of Appeal (June 2012)
...requirements of proof required to establish the tort of negligent representation as set out in the case of the Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87. Applying that test on the Rule 20 motion, the motion judge correctly cited the special relevance of the fourth criterion: that the represe......
-
Summary Judgment Motion In Actions For Wrongful Dismissal Started Under The Simplified Procedure Rule: A New Way Forward
...dealt with quickly and efficiently. Indeed, this approach has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 1 SCR 87, ("Hryniak") and other decisions which have encouraged utilizing summary judgment motions as a means to obtain timely and just adjudication of clai......
-
Table of Cases
...665, [2000] C.L.L.C. ¶230-020, 2000 SCC 27 ................................................................. 217 Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, 99 D.L.R. (4th) 626, 45 C.C.E.L. 153, 93 C.L.L.C. ¶14,019............................................................ 40 Quinlan v. Brid......
-
Table of cases
...781, 34 D.L.R. (4th) 767 (C.A.) ........................................................................... 217 Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, 99 D.L.R. (4th) 626, 147 N.R. 169, 14 C.C.L.T. (2d) 113.............................................................. 411 R. v. Cuerrier ......
-
Introduction
...negligent misrepresentation claims, the Supreme Court stated that such reliance must have been reasonable: see Queen v. Cognos, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87 at para. 33; Hercules Management Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165 at para. 41. Philip Anisman & Garry Watson, “Some Comparisons betwee......
-
Table of cases
...Pridmore v. Calvert (1975), 54 D.L.R. (3d) 133 (B.C.S.C.) ..............................246 Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, 99 D.L.R. (4th) 626 ..................100–1 Quillard v. 541066 Ontario Ltd., [1990] O.J. No. 3141, 1 C.C.L.I. (2d) 263 (Gen. Div.).................................